Safety Cameras
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
12.42pm
(Dewsbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary
of State to publish revised guidance on the deployment,
visibility and signing of speed and red-light cameras for traffic
enforcement; to require that guidance to include amended site
selection criteria for safety cameras, including a lower
threshold for the number of collisions in which a person is
killed or seriously injured; to require that guidance to provide
for a process by which local communities can express support for
the installation of safety cameras in areas of concern; and for
connected purposes.
A 2007 circular from the Department for Transport recognised
speeding as one of the
“most significant dimensions of unlawful, disorderly and
dangerous road vehicle use”.
It provided key guidance on the use of speed and red light
cameras for traffic enforcement to improve the safety of road
users and pedestrians. It encouraged changes in driver behaviour,
paved the way for local authority partnerships to support their
communities and outlined criteria for site selection to help
decision making regarding any new cameras.
I want to get ahead of the keen journalists in the Gallery and
confess that I currently have three points on my licence for
speeding, but I emphasise that I was caught by a camera and
modified my behaviour—proving that cameras do, in fact, work.
Fifteen years on from the introduction of the guidance, speeding
motorists are arguably the No. 1 local issue highlighted across
Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton, Denby Dale and, I am told, many
of my colleagues’ constituencies. Alongside the concerns that my
constituents regularly raise, that is something I have seen
myself, with the Dewsbury ring road in particular occasionally
resembling an Indy 500 track.
Speeding became significantly more noticeable during the
pandemic, when fewer people were driving, with some drivers
taking advantage of the emptier roads to drive at reckless
speeds. I pay tribute to West Yorkshire police for all the work
it continues to do to keep our roads safe, but it cannot be
everywhere at once, especially given the vast expanse of rural
roads.
According to the current guidance, the primary objective of
camera deployment is to reduce deaths and injuries on roads, with
a study conducted by the London School of Economics finding that,
from 1992 to 2016, traffic enforcement cameras reduced accidents
by between 17% and 39%, while reducing fatalities by between 58%
and 68%.
Since April 2009, the criteria for fixed and mobile camera
deployment have been based on the number of accidents in which
someone is killed or seriously injured, with a scoring system in
which each KSI accident scores five points and each slight injury
accident scores one point.
Sixty-five people died and more than 5,000 people were injured in
collisions on the roads of West Yorkshire last year. The majority
of these collisions were entirely preventable, with excessive or
inappropriate speed being one of the most common factors in fatal
and serious injury collisions. However, the guidance in West
Yorkshire still requires at least three people to be killed or
seriously injured within a three-year period—at least three
people need either to die or suffer a serious collision, with
potentially life-changing injuries—to satisfy just one of the
criteria to install a speed camera. This means that at least
three families need to have their lives changed forever before a
preventive measure can be implemented.
Between 2017 and 2021, nearly 700 collisions were reported on
roads in my constituency. Fifteen of those were on Liley Lane
running through the middle of Lepton. According to the current
list of speed cameras provided by West Yorkshire safety camera
partnership, there are no fixed cameras covering that road. There
were also 13 reported collisions on Huddersfield Road, running
through Shelley and Skelmanthorpe. There are cameras on nearby
roads, but apparently none covering the road itself.
The local community continues to highlight concerns to me
regarding those roads. According to the local safety camera
partnership,
“community concerns are one factor which may result in the use of
a camera provided there is evidence of a collision history and/or
traffic survey revealing speed limit violations meeting the
required threshold. Local authorities will apply the criteria to
determine whether the use of either fixed or mobile cameras is
justified.”
Prevention is better than cure, so what is being done to support
that?
As it stands, the 2007 circular appears keen to involve local
communities concerned by the effect of high-speed driving in
their area. However, in the guidance and on the partnership and
local authority websites, there is no structured, signposted
point of contact for communities to reach out to, so complaints
are consequently being made to local councillors, the police and
local MPs.
The creation of standardised points of contact, for local
residents across the UK to highlight where speed cameras would be
useful, would be a crucial step in ensuring our constituents are
heard and kept safe. Rural communities notice and are most
affected by speeding motorists, so it is vital that we create and
implement an effective and straightforward channel they can use
to encourage change.
I have therefore worked closely with community groups and village
associations to understand and highlight the impact of dangerous
driving in their area. Alongside highlighting the concerns of
Shepley village association at Prime Minister’s questions last
year, I have supported the campaigns of residents in Briestfield
in Dewsbury and Upper Hopton in Mirfield to tackle speeding in
their area by reducing the speed limit. I would also like to take
this opportunity to thank my team and the local councillors, who
work hard to respond to these concerns and can then support the
development of a coherent approach for local residents to
highlight the issues publicly.
I have raised this issue in the House on multiple occasions. In
September 2021, I highlighted the need to change the guidance,
with the Department for Transport promising a redrafted form of
the 2007 circular by the end of the year. I appreciate that much
has changed over the past two years, but it would be fantastic if
we could complete the redraft and implement a 2023 circular.
Finally, I want to assure colleagues that this Bill seeks not to
give local authorities the green light—for want of a better
phrase—to install as many cameras as they can as part of a
revenue-generating scheme, but to reassure our constituents that
they will be listened to and supported in making their
communities a safe place to live, walk, cycle and enjoy. Speeding
traffic puts everyone at risk, whether they live in a built-up
town or a more rural village. We want our roads to be safe for
everyone, but too often we hear about accidents or near misses
where speed was a key factor.
I am introducing this Bill to bring down the points threshold,
with a requirement for fewer serious accidents within the
timeframe, and to establish a pathway for communities to petition
for cameras, so that we can make sure that action is taken sooner
and lives are saved. I hope Members from across the House can
agree that the continuous improvement of road safety is crucial
to all our constituents, and I commend this Bill to the
House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24
November, and to be printed (Bill 342).
